2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 5, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 29, Number 1

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

PROTECTING B.C.’S CHILDREN

D. Donaldson: No child or youth should die or be abused in care while under the protection of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It’s as simple as that, yet it’s happening far too often. The infuriating thing is that these deaths and abuses are preventable and unnecessary. Lessons from past tragedies do not seem to be learned in order to prevent current and future tragedies.

No one in this chamber, both sides, wants that to happen — for kids to be dying while in care. Yet, it is sickening to hear that it is a complex ministry, seemingly as a justification. I hope we don’t hear that again today from the other side during this debate.

I expect we’re going to hear from the other side about numbers of kids in care declining. Apparently, the ministry has statistically decreased the numbers of kids in care, by 1,000 getting wiped off the rolls due to file duplication or no longer in care, but not taken off the ministry’s list.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The children’s representative has some concerns about that, like where they went and how they’re being taken care of now that they’re not on the list. It’s no wonder there are concerns, with this 1,000 getting wiped off the list, with this government’s record of failed IT software and lost data. But let’s just say that a reduction, if valid and with proper follow-up, is a good thing.

We’re also likely to hear about increased social workers, and that is good too, although it falls far short of BCGEU recommendations, and the number of cases per social worker is still unacceptable, according to experts.

Despite the decreases in numbers of children and youth in care and an increase in social workers, kids are still dying and being abused in care, just after leaving care or just after aging out. It’s a matter of lack of focus, lack of leadership and lack of resources.

The lack of focus by this government. It’s been all LNG, all the time, for the last three years. It’s consumed the bureaucracy, at the direction of the Premier. In that time, we’ve had a new ministry, the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, and a repurposed ministry, the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction, yet no retooled focus on no kids dying in care.

[1005]

Remember, we had a Premier with five great goals. Well, what about a great goal of no kid dies in care? What ever happened to families first? It makes a mockery of that slogan.

Lack of leadership by this government. The culture is defined by leadership — the culture in the ministry. Twice recently it has been shown that the ministry has been defying court orders, in the J.P. case and the Justice Groves decision. It makes it seem like the ministry is above the law and also makes front-line work more difficult.

Are they supposed to obey the law or not? And with policy, in the case of Alex Gervais death, the minister said staff were directed not to place young people from his closed group home in hotels. It’s apparent the staff don’t listen to the minister. That’s a lack of leadership. That is a lack of confidence in the minister within her own ministry.

Recommendations not implemented. Almost three years ago, the children’s representative recommended there should be more residential care options for children and youth who have complex needs that cannot be met in a traditional group home or foster care setting. The recommendation was ignored, and now we’ve had the death of Alex Gervais, and we just learned about Alex Malamalatabua while in care — teens with complex needs, who would have benefited from increased residential services, and both of them are now dead.

More than 50 percent of children and youth in care are aboriginal, yet a recommendation made two years ago to develop an explicit policy for negotiation of jurisdictional transfer over child welfare to First Nations has been ignored. That’s not leadership. And in the case of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, this government linked the continuation of ongoing funding for their child welfare programs with the chiefs’ approval of LNG-related pipelines across their traditional aboriginal title lands. Using vulnerable First Nations children as bargaining chips does not build trust, does not build credibility and is not leadership.

A rapid response was promised by the minister in the days after Paige’s story came to light in May — a rapid response team to help other youth like Paige in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. It’s taken five months, and the rapid response team is still not fully in place. Only in the world of MCFD is five months considered a rapid response to children in crisis. That’s not leadership.

Lack of resources — $100 million is lost in real dollars from 2008 to 2013 in the ministry. During the last two years, more than $5 million was spent on the newly created Auditor General for Local Government Office. Think about how many specialized group homes that $5 million could have supported for young people like Alex Gervais. We have an under-resourced and overstretched
[ Page 9376 ]
child welfare system. In 2004-05, spending per capita on children and youth and family services in B.C. was $360. By 2014, that number was $287. That’s a 20 percent decrease when during the same period the consumer price index rose by more than 17 percent.

We have way too many front-line staff at MCFD who work in an environment of severe staff shortages and excessive caseloads. It causes burnout and extreme stress at a time when we need front-line staff to be at the top of their game. In his report on the Manitoba child welfare system, the hon. Ted Hughes recommended reducing the workload of social workers to 20 cases a month.

Experts in the field say best practices are 16 to 17 a month. In B.C., over 80 percent of MCFD social workers have caseloads of greater than 20 a month and nearly half have over 30 cases a month — 30 cases a month. And 45 percent of MCFD administrative service personnel say they cover another worker’s job as well as their own. That’s not sufficiently resourced, and this is a budget decision by this government.

Focus, leadership, resources — significant action is long overdue in all three areas. Otherwise, we will continue to see too many children dying and being abused in care. I’ll now take my seat and look forward to the response by the government side.

[1010]

M. Morris: This is a topic that’s near and dear to everybody in this House — the protection of our children and the most vulnerable people in our society right across the province. As a father and a grandfather, it’s emphasized to me on a very regular basis. But also, as a former police officer who used to deal with tragic situations involving children and vulnerable people in our society across British Columbia, it has more of an emphasis for me.

I hear the member opposite, but I also see the good work that’s being done out there by the front-line social workers working in oftentimes very unpredictable situations.

A situation comes to mind for me. Many years ago, I was policing in a small community, and as was normal for all the communities I policed in, we worked hand in hand with the front-line social workers. We worked hand in hand with many people in the community who were working for the protection of young children and the vulnerable people that we have.

A couple of social workers had come in from a community into a remote community I was working at to seize three children that had been abused by their guardian. The police had been conducting an investigation. In fact, it was my investigation. I’d been conducting the investigation for quite some time, and we felt that the protection of the children was paramount. We’d been working with the social workers.

When we went to apprehend these children, the family had been able to garner the support of all the neighbours. We were stoned. We had bottles thrown at us. We had everything imaginable happen to us to prevent us from taking those children and putting those children into safe custody to keep them from the continual abuse — sexual abuse and physical abuse — that they’d been subjected to.

Unfortunately, because of the privacy act and a whole bunch of restrictions on the police and the investigators at the time, we couldn’t tell the people in the community why those children were being taken into custody. We couldn’t tell them that it was for their protection that the police were there and the social workers were there. We suffered through the abuse.

I sat down with the leaders in the community, and we were able to negotiate some form of protection for the children as an interim measure until we could successfully take them out of that environment.

You know, the public see these things going on. It’s a very emotional situation that the front-line social workers are involved in when they get tied up in these kinds of things. Emotions sometimes overtake a sensible reaction from the spectators, the people in the community, sometimes the members opposite, in view of these kinds of situations when they don’t understand all the facts.

There is a difficult job out there. There is not one front-line social worker, there is not one member of this side of the House and, I’m presuming, the other side of the House that wants anything less than full protection for the children to keep them in a safe environment for the rest of their lives and to make them become fruitful citizens of this province. But there are those impediments.

Can we say that there is not one more child going to die in this province, in this country, in this world as a result of physical abuse or whatever the situation is? I wish we could say that, but unfortunately, we can’t, because there are too many unpredictable things up there.

But as a government, we’re doing everything that we can to ensure that the front-line social workers…. There are more on the road, as the member opposite eluded to. There are more on the road today than there were a year ago. We’re going to have another 90 or so by January of 2016 on the road to make sure that the vulnerable people, the children in our communities, are safe.

We are doing everything we can. The ministry has had excellent leadership, sustained leadership, for the past three years in the ministry. That’s providing great guidance and great vision for that particular ministry so that we can continue to provide a very high level of protection for our children right across this province well into the future.

Contrary to what the member opposite says, we do care about children in this province, and we don’t want to see one more child die.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for his comments.

I have no doubt that he, along with every member in this chamber, does not want to see kids in care dying, and
[ Page 9377 ]
I also believe that he would agree that the complexity of a case is not to be used as an excuse for inaction.

[1015]

Kids are still dying in care. The goal should be to have no children dying in care in this province. That would be a great goal. That would be leadership. Instead, we have a minister who says tragedies happen. “From time to time, there are tragic circumstances.” Well, the evidence for the past few months is that this is happening way too often. It’s not from time to time.

A Premier who says she sees eye to eye with the minister…. Eye to eye on what? Eye to eye that the children’s representative was told Alex Gervais wasn’t living in a hotel long term, when he was — a hotel where he subsequently fell to his death from his fourth-floor window? Is that seeing eye to eye, Madam Premier?

A three-year-old recommendation to increase residential options for complex youth-in-care cases hasn’t been put in place, and now Alex Gervais and Alex Malamalatabua are dead? Is that seeing eye to eye, Premier?

A court order was disobeyed by staff, and a young girl was returned to her abusive father, when she was then sexually abused, as found by Justice Walker in the J.P. case? Is that seeing eye to eye, Madam Premier?

Then in another case, another court order was ignored. A young girl was kept from her grandmother for 18 months, and Justice Groves had to threaten contempt of court proceedings before MCFD complied? Is that seeing eye to eye, Madam Premier?

When a youth in care turns 19, they are suddenly deemed okay and get fewer services and less support, as in the case with Paige, a young First Nations woman who died of a drug overdose only 11 months after aging out. Is that seeing eye to eye, Madam Premier? Creating a rapid response team to support extremely vulnerable young people like Paige has taken five months to put in place. Is that seeing eye to eye, Madam Premier?

The unexplained death of a 21-month-old, Isabella Wiens, while in care was only reviewed two years after the fact, despite evidence of body bruising and untreated healing fractures. Is that seeing eye to eye, Madam Premier?

No. It appears what the Premier says is seeing eye to eye is more about protecting her minister instead of kids. What I call it is a lack of focus, a lack of leadership and a lack of resources. And the children and youth die, and the children and youth are abused, and what we need is for it to stop.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we should be very, very careful. We should not be using any partisan language when we are addressing any of the issues in the House.

BENEFITS OF B.C’S FARMERS

L. Throness: I very much appreciate this opportunity to talk about the benefits of B.C. farmers to all British Columbians. I love to brag about my own riding of Chilliwack-Hope, so this gives me an opportunity to do that as well, how agriculture benefits my own constituents as well as all people in B.C.

In September, I was able to join the agricultural farm tour. It’s an annual tour where a couple of busloads of people travel around the riding, visiting cutting-edge farms and farm businesses in Chilliwack. This year the farm tour was featured on the front page of the Chilliwack Times, our local paper, and the headline said that gross farm receipts amount to $360 million per year in Chilliwack. That’s a lot of money. That’s a big economic driver in Chilliwack.

There are 20,000 farms in B.C.; 939 of them are in Chilliwack. It amounts to one in five jobs, about 4,000 jobs in total, in the area. It’s a huge economic driver for my region.

Now, about half of the farms in my area are governed under the supply management regime. It ensures that consumers have a high-quality product at a reasonable price while farmers have a stable income. Supply management has been a pillar of support in my riding. We have a very stable farming community, and I appreciate that, and I support supply management.

People often compare the prices of dairy products in Canada with those in the States. I would point out that under the farm bill, which is passed about every five years in the United States, dairy products are subsidized directly by the taxpayer there. The latest farm bill, passed just last year, in 2014, authorized almost $1 trillion over ten years to go to agriculture, with a great deal going to dairy.

Now in Canada, dairy receives no government subsidies whatsoever from the government. In fact, they’re not even eligible for Growing Forward 2, which is a suite of federal-provincial aid programs for other farmers across Canada. Our five supply-managed industries do not have access to this. In fact, every country will protect its farming industry to make sure that they are not dependent on other countries for their basic food supplies, and Canada is no exception to this, and I think that’s just a great policy.

[1020]

I would point out that this morning the federal government announced that it has signed a tentative Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. It appears from the deal that supply management will be preserved, with 100 percent financial compensation for any losses over a 15-year phase-in period. I’m cautiously optimistic about the deal. There are still a lot of details to examine. Our government will be doing that in the near future.

I want to move on to the B.C. jobs plan, which focuses in part on agriculture. In 2011, our government introduced the plan, which focuses on eight main sectors. The opposition always accuses us of focusing only on LNG, but it’s absolutely untrue.

Agriculture is one of the main pillars of our jobs plan. It was the goal of the jobs plan to increase the value of
[ Page 9378 ]
agricultural revenue from $12 billion to $14 billion by 2017 — a very transparent goal. Now, how are we doing that? There was an update last year. We set 49 targets to grow our agrifood sector; 44 of them have now been met.

There are lots of examples I could point to. Export examples — our agrifood exports to China amounted to $234 million in 2013. It was up 38 percent. Pink salmon was up 85 percent, and so on. I could go on and list things. We are on track to meeting our goal of increasing provincewide revenue for agriculture to $14 billion by 2017. That would be a great achievement on behalf of all British Columbians.

Now I want to talk for a moment about buying local. We’ve been talking about export. What about buying local?

I like to eat bananas and pineapples and other exotic foods, and I’m sure we all do. But I also like to buy local wherever possible, and the very best way to do that is to make sure that our local produce is of highest quality and of the best price. Our government has come up with a very sensible plan to make that happen. Altogether we’ve invested $6 million so far — $2 million in this budget alone — for our buy-local program. Its goal is to build local markets for B.C. producers.

My colleague from Chilliwack and I learned of a good example of how it works by visiting an agrifood plant in my riding called Johnston Packers. It’s just one of many hidden gems. There are many hidden gems in my riding that are really quite significant businesses. Johnston Packers has 120 employees. It does mostly pork.

As we sat down with them, we found out more about them. It depends on local farmers for its product, and it received $95,000 under the buy-local program for two different projects. Here’s how just one of them will work. Johnston acts as sort of a regional supplier to retailers and wholesalers in the area for meat products. If we can help Johnston gets its product into more stores, it’s going to have a knock-on effect of helping farmers throughout the Lower Mainland produce more for the local market.

So $63,000 of that grant will go to build brand loyalty through advertising, through in-store promotions, through cooking classes that they hold. If Johnston Packers can raise the awareness of British Columbians that their product is of superior quality and get them to buy more, it will make them better able to compete on price, which will be a virtuous cycle where everyone will prosper, including the initial producer, including the processor and including the B.C. consumer.

We’re making, together, agriculture a win-win-win proposition for all British Columbians. These are just some of the benefits of agriculture, of the B.C. farmer.

L. Popham: It’s always such a pleasure to rise in this House on a Monday morning and talk about agriculture. It’s one of my favourite topics. Also, one of my favourite things to do is to debate the member from Chilliwack on agriculture. I know he’s very proud of his constituency and the people that are growing and involved in agriculture in his riding. I know he’s very proud of them.

It gives me great hope when I bring up a topic and talk about the need for more support for agriculture, especially in his constituency, that he would see it to support my viewpoint. I think that everybody in this House has become more and more aware of agriculture and the importance of farmers in British Columbia.

But I have to point out, in a non-partisan way, that everybody eats. When we talk about our support for agriculture and we talk about policies that are put in place and we don’t talk about a long-term sustainable agriculture plan, then we’re not doing everything we can to support farmers in British Columbia. I talk about the need for a long-term plan in regards to climate change and our plan for resilience. I’m not the only one who talks like that. The B.C. Agriculture Council also talks about not having a long-term plan.

[1025]

The member has many amazing things going on in his riding, including what used to be a very successful hazelnut-growing sector. This member knows very well that the hazelnut growers have been asking for some support — a change in policies for replant money — just in order to kind of modernize what they’re trying to do and be reborn into a market that is questing for more and more hazelnuts around the world.

When we support things like agriculture, it doesn’t stop at the farmer. What we do is we incent value-added markets to burgeon.

One thing that the hazelnut growers used to have that they no longer have is processing facilities. We are down to one, and possibly that one is even going out of business. When we have value-added with our primary products in this province, then we all win.

Now there’s another issue that’s going on in the province, and this is due to very short-term planning by the B.C. Liberals — that is, our decisions around land use policy and allowing licensed producers to set up shop in different municipalities. The government opened that up and pushed the responsibility for decision-making on licensed producers of medical cannabis onto municipalities, and basically we’ve washed our hands of any land use decisions.

What has that done to our municipalities? Our municipalities are now grappling with a very interesting situation, and it’s not about cannabis. It’s not about marijuana. It’s specifically about land use.

When we allow licensed producers to set up shop in B.C., they’re trying to get approved by Health Canada. Health Canada requires that a building be built if you’re going to be producing medical cannabis. A building must be built on the site where it’s located, and in this case we’re allowing it in the agricultural land reserve.

Once that building is built and Health Canada looks at it, they can then approve or not approve a licence for
[ Page 9379 ]
a production. Most of these licences are not approved. What we’ve done is set up another thin edge of the wedge in the agricultural land reserve. These buildings are not getting approved. They’re not being used for medical cannabis production, yet they’re sitting vacant. So we are having now…. I can give you an example from Maple Ridge.

Maple Ridge is one of the municipalities that decided to embrace the government’s policy on medical cannabis facilities on ALR land and not prohibit them in their own local bylaws. Now they have, at this point, I think, 17 applications on ALR land. The residents there are very concerned about well water usage and all the things that go along with brand-new types of growing.

Now, I know the member who represents Chilliwack…. Chilliwack is also starting to grapple with the implications of this sort of land use policy. It’s in my viewpoint that, if we really are going to embrace farming and we’re going to embrace farmers and the value of agriculture, we have to look at it in a long-term way.

It doesn’t help our farmers. It doesn’t help our production levels if we’re pushing responsibility onto local government to make land use decisions that will possibly erode our agricultural land reserve. Without the agricultural land reserve, we might as well not have farmers.

L. Throness: I always appreciate the concern of the member for Saanich South for agriculture in B.C. and particularly for hazelnuts, which is a concern in her riding as well as mine. It’s a great niche crop.

Perhaps she’s not aware that the hazelnut growers held a meeting a few weeks ago, and there were apparently 70 producers and potential producers at that meeting. There was enormous interest in the possibilities for hazelnuts in the future. Perhaps, at $12 a tree, it’s really quite an inexpensive crop to plant. It remains to be seen how the government could help the hazelnut growers. Of course, I remain open to what they have to say.

I wanted to end by pointing out a little bit more about our Buy Local program. We’ve supported about 40 campaigns to support B.C. foods so far in our program, with companies, large and small, reporting increases. I just wanted to give a few examples.

The B.C. Food Processors Association reported sales of B.C. products increased by $5 million during just the first four months of their project.

[1030]

Cherries — 17,000 additional cartons of cherries were sold over three weeks in 2013, compared to the same period in 2012, even though there was a smaller crop. Finally, the entire crop of the new Salish and Aurora Golden Gala apples sold, with successful introduction in four of B.C.’s largest food retail chains.

We’re helping our agrifood businesses both internationally and locally. That’s a solid game plan. It’s going to work for B.C. farmers, it’s going to work for all British Columbians, and it’s one all members of this House, I do believe, ought to wholeheartedly support.

IMPROVING ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING

D. Eby: They say that repeating the same activity and expecting a different result the second time is the definition of stupidity. While I have little doubt that I’m repeating myself here today in asking the government to put forward a plan for affordable housing — a plan that they’re actually going to follow, with metrics that they’re going to measure to see improvement in affordable housing — I’m hopeful that rather than seeing the same result, we may actually see a response from the government, some words promising action this time.

The reason I say that is that the Finance Minister has been in the media. He’s saying that he might shift the property transfer tax, that there’s a higher tax on luxury homes above a certain value and that he might invest the proceeds of that tax shift into affordable housing.

I’d like to use this opportunity of the motion to raise to the government’s attention that they’ve made this kind of promise before. Now, the last time that the government promised to use the proceeds from a new policy and invest that into affordable housing was when they decided to sell social housing units across the province — in fact, the entire portfolio of social housing held by the province — to non-profit organizations. They expect that the proceeds of that sale will bring in about half a billion dollars to the province.

Now, this government promised repeatedly that they would use the proceeds from this sale — half a billion dollars — to build new social and affordable housing across the province. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened. The proceeds from this sale went into general revenue and essentially displaced money that was already earmarked to be spent on maintaining existing affordable housing across the province.

The B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association came forward. They brought forward concerns about this flip-flop on the promise to invest in affordable housing. They said: “We had understood that the funds generated through the non-profit asset transfer program” — that’s a euphemism for selling social housing — “would be new funds to invest in provincial affordable housing initiatives, which would have been a much-needed cash infusion during times of austerity. It was surprising to learn that so far, the income from the sales of Crown property is being used to fund previously announced commitments, with no new money for housing.”

That’s half a billion dollars that was promised to go into new money for affordable housing during a crisis in this province that instead is going into general revenue. What is the government doing with their general revenue? Well, in part, they’re funding a 2 percent tax cut for the richest
[ Page 9380 ]
people in this province. Imagine that. Breaking a promise — to use money from selling social housing, to put the money into general revenue, and funding from general revenue a 2 percent tax cut for the richest people in the province. Doesn’t that reflect the priorities of this government just perfectly?

It was several months ago now that I visited the tent city in Maple Ridge as well as residents who live near that tent city and a local business that was suffering significant losses as a result of the tent city located outside their front door. At that time, the members for Maple Ridge were missing in action and so was their government, for the entire summer. They waited until the dying days of August to announce that they were going to fund a temporary shelter — not a permanent housing solution but a temporary shelter — in a Sleep Country Canada store.

Thank goodness that during the summer, the city took the initiative to hire outreach workers to house some of these people, that neighbours took the initiative to run garden hoses from their backyard to make sure people didn’t suffer from heatstroke and end up in emergency rooms — and a government with half a billion dollars in proceeds from selling social housing took months to pony up half a million dollars for a temporary shelter.

[1035]

Up the road in Abbotsford, the city faces a tent city without end; in Terrace, a record number of homeless people counted by volunteers. It’s no wonder that this province, despite repeated requests, refuses to count the number of street homeless people in the province. The results surely would not be flattering.

We do have some metrics, though. The B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association says that in Kelowna, Penticton, Chilliwack, Whistler, Squamish, Nanaimo and Victoria, one in four households pays more than half of their income for rent. The rest of the province isn’t much better, with one in five households paying more than half of their income for rent.

If ever there was a time for the government to follow through with their promises on investing new money in affordable housing, now is the time. But instead of using the real money on hand from the sales of social housing to house people across the province, they’re plugging it back into general revenue. And they have to be dragged to the table during a crisis for a temporary shelter in Maple Ridge.

Today’s motion — an opportunity to urge this government to step up and to keep their commitment if, in fact, they do plan on dealing with the property transfer tax in this way, because the track record of this government in promising to invest the proceeds of these kinds of actions in affordable housing is not good.

I worry about what we’ll see in the Finance Minister’s budget, the 2016 budget coming forward, with more proceeds from more sales of social housing and, potentially, with proceeds from taxes on houses — what, above $3 million, above $2 million? Why do I have the feeling that I’ll be up here again saying the same thing? I hope that that’s not the case. I thank you for this opportunity to raise this issue with the government today.

S. Sullivan: I thank the member from Point Grey for his comments. He started off by giving a quote. I believe he was trying to quote Albert Einstein. I believe he misquoted him as well. There was the issue of stupidity. I think Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting the same result,” if I might helpfully correct the member.

I do also suggest what he may be doing is very much what Albert Einstein cautioned against. I did detect in his statements at least two things he said. One was that taxing the rich, taxing those with high income, is the way to solve our problems and also that foreigners — perhaps foreign investment, people who are different from us — investing in housing might be the cause of unaffordable housing.

May I address those two points? First of all, Vancouver in particular has seen extreme difficulty in housing affordability. It’s very corrosive. It harms investment. It harms the economy. We have actually seen, in Vancouver, housing prices rising dramatically since the 1970s. Any university student, and now even high school students who are learning more about economics, would tell you that the issue of price is a function of supply and demand.

What the city has done in the past — certainly, the city of Vancouver when there was a lot of foreign investment looking for a place to land — was supplied a lot of land, a lot of buildable property. We look at the Concord Pacific areas. We look at the Marathon property, now called Coal Harbour. A lot of the foreign investment was able to be put into new housing that benefited the citizens of Vancouver and all the citizens of British Columbia.

This is the kind of investment that economists love because, when foreign investors put money into new housing, they can’t actually take the housing away. That housing there is a long-term benefit for all of the citizens.

[1040]

What we’ve seen since the 1970s is a supply problem. The cities have downzoned — a lot of the city. For instance, the West End was completely downzoned. Yet we saw in the 1960s, with the construction of West End Towers, rents dropped dramatically. We see that the laws of supply and demand do work, and if you allow more supply, you will get lower prices.

Unfortunately, the provincial government does not control supply. The supply is controlled by the cities, and the cities have to find a way to overcome local opposition and allow for more supply of housing. That was the best way to reduce the price of housing. We are going to have to somehow overcome the resistance that has been institutionalized in city governments since the 1970s.

We know that there are different ways to increase supply. There is sprawl. We could continue to sprawl out
[ Page 9381 ]
into the furthest reaches of the area. For example, Metro Vancouver loses eight square feet per second every working day to sprawl, new housing being built.

What this does is it causes problems for local environment and the global environment. There was a study recently done that shows that people that live in the downtown of Vancouver create 1½ tonnes of greenhouse gas per person. Those in the inner suburbs create 3 tonnes per person and those further out in Vancouver create six tonnes per person.

Four times as much greenhouse gas is created by sprawl. In Toronto, they note that someone who lives in Whitby, in the farthest suburbs, will create ten times as much greenhouse gas as those who live in the downtown core.

We have to find a way to increase the supply of housing and do that in an environmentally sustainable way. We know that when you build more single family homes, it takes 35 times as much land to do so as it would in a higher density area.

I would offer those comments to the member.

D. Eby: I thank the member for his correction on the definition of “stupidity.” I’m sure that he knows more about this area than I do, and I thank him for that.

I think one of the core issues that this government has is…. In order to respond to a crisis of affordable housing, you have to understand that you have a problem. You can hear in the member’s response, first of all, that he doesn’t respond to the issues I raised. But secondly, he doesn’t even recognize — and neither does this government — that there’s an issue of affordable housing that they have a role to play in.

He says it’s the city’s fault: “If the city would just step….” He represents one of the densest neighbourhoods in the world, beside another neighbourhood, the West End, with incredible density and vacancies of less than 1 percent.

What does our Housing Minister say? Don’t worry about what the member says. What does his Housing Minister say about the crisis of homelessness, about the crisis of rental affordability across the province? He says: “We live in the jurisdiction with the most successful housing strategy in North American history.” It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic for the families involved.

Consider buying housing. Get out of the of the rent race. Rental less than 1 percent? Why don’t you just buy a condo? Greater Vancouver houses average over $1 million a piece, up 173 percent since 2005. A house? The entitled millennials who want to live in houses — maybe they should try living in a condo.

Well, sure. Put your new family into a bachelor or a one bedroom, because if you want two or three bedrooms, it starts at $450,000. Combine that with child care costs — totally unrealistic for many, many people to live in Metro Vancouver.

Here’s what the minister said about the cost of housing in Vancouver, which was found, by an international study by Demographia, to be the most expensive city in the world when compared to incomes. He said Vancouver was “actually pretty affordable.” This is the definition of out of touch.

What does the Premier tell people to do in Metro Vancouver? “Move to Fort St. John.” Fort St. John headline, Alaska Highway News, September 14, just a couple of weeks ago: “Peace Region Among the Worst in Canada When It Comes to Housing Affordability.”

[1045]

The city of Fort St. John puts on their website that one of the reasons they can’t recruit doctors to Fort St. John is housing affordability issues. Doctors can’t afford to live in Fort St. John, in the city the Premier is touting as the remedy to affordability.

This government needs to wake up to the reality of the crisis. They have to acknowledge that there’s an affordable housing crisis first of all, and then they have to own that they have a role to play in ameliorating that. As long as they have somebody else to blame, we’re not going to see any progress on this issue.

TECH START-UP SUCCESSES

S. Hamilton: British Columbia is well known for its resource-based economy and for good reason. Our traditional industries — logging, mining, fishing and agriculture — continue to be important sectors of our economy, but they no longer represent the majority of jobs in our province.

Advances in technology, coupled with the fact that British Columbia is one of the most connected provinces, with high-speed internet, is generating a technological revolution that’s establishing B.C. as a hub for high-tech start-ups. As a matter of fact, the tech sector employs approximately 4½ percent of B.C.’s workforce. That represents nearly 87,000 jobs.

It contributes 6½ percent of provincial GDP, and that number is rising. That’s $23.3 billion in revenue this year alone and a 5.2 percent increase over last year. Best of all, B.C.’s technology sector not only contributes to the provincial economy in terms of jobs and economic output; it also delivers indirect benefit across all economic sectors.

I can tell you that this government is working very closely with the industry to foster even more growth. That’s why I’m drawing your attention to high-tech, by bringing forth the following private member’s statement entitled “Tech Start-up Success in British Columbia.”

We want a diverse economy for a host of reasons. The main reason is because a diverse economy makes us resilient to economic turmoil all around the world, including places as close to us as Alberta. But a diverse economy also gives people more career options than ever existed before. As a father, I can attest to that fact, because my daughter Paige works for one of them.

Immersive Media is a start-up success story that
[ Page 9382 ]
began right here in British Columbia. Headquartered in Kelowna, Immersive Media is a digital imaging company that specializes in spherical immersive video. Founded in 1994, Immersive Media produced the world’s first full-motion, immersive video movie. In 2004, Immersive Media lodged the Dodeca System, the first spherical camera that was all digital.

If you’re having trouble imagining what this company does, maybe you’re more familiar with something known as Google Street View. In 2006, they sent a fleet of Volkswagen Beetles, equipped with their camera systems, to collect video of major streets in cities within the United States and Canada. IMC then introduced the street view concept to Google, featuring its first 35 cities.

This was viewed by more than 75 million people in the first four days. Not bad for a little start-up company from Kelowna. Although Google eventually went with its own system, IMC has continued to grow and grow. Immersive Media’s cameras were mounted on police cars guarding the presidential motorcade of George W. Bush at the 2005 inaugural parade. IMC cameras were also used for the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama.

Immersive Media now focuses on three markets: situational awareness; GIS mapping; and advertising for such brands as Mercedes-Benz, Microsoft, Red Bull, Armani Jeans, the NBA, NBC Sports, Adidas and MTV.

As a matter of fact, my daughter recently attended the 2015 MTV Video Music Awards in Los Angeles. Immersive Media delivered another major first there. Fans were transported to the red carpet through an innovative 360-degree, virtual-reality live-streaming view by simply downloading the im360 app.

According to MTV Connected Content senior vice-president Colin Helms: “Virtual reality is changing the way people see the world, and we’re excited to bring this innovative storytelling tool to the VMA red carpet ahead of this year’s show. We’re excited to build on MTV’s long-standing history of digital innovation as one of the first networks to ever fully integrate a live virtual reality experience to give viewers a carpet-side seat.” All this from a small start-up company in Kelowna.

But success stories like this don’t happen by accident. Many start-up companies will tell you that the first years of development don’t pay very well. In fact, they’ll tell you that the only way to attract talent is to provide employees with stock options. They put faith in their technological innovations, hoping that one day they’ll see the big break.

[1050]

The problem is that there are people who want to deliberately stand in the way of technological innovation and prevent start-ups from succeeding in the first place. Federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has announced that the NDP government would close tax loopholes on stock options which help the wealthiest Canadians — “loopholes that I will close and redirect the money, dollar for dollar, to reducing income inequality in this country.”

In this rather misguided attempt to declare class warfare and destroy the economy, the NDP is demonstrating once again that they have no clue how an economy works. We’re not talking about people with private jets and limousines. We’re talking about people sometimes working out of their basements with nothing but a dream and idea.

I’d like to ask the members opposite if they support NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s plan to derail the high-tech industry.

G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the member for Delta North, particularly because I appear to have significantly more information than he does. But first of all, let me say that it’s a pleasure to hear the members of the government, finally, as they have over the last few months, pivot from the LNG industry, which has yet to produce any firm investment or commitment to create jobs in British Columbia, and to start talking about the benefits of a diversified economy.

I’ve spoken in this House many times over my two years here about the importance of the tech sector and the fact that it is a sector with tremendous potential for growth, if only there were some targeted policies from the government of British Columbia to help them grow even faster than they have been on their own. Also, the sector provides many more jobs than all of the resource industries combined — notwithstanding the fact that, having worked in resource industries most of my younger years, I recognize their importance to B.C. and their importance to people in rural communities that work in them.

Let me briefly respond to the member for Delta North. He apparently missed the comments from the federal leader of the NDP that were received extremely well by the tech sector, including by Ryan Holmes, the CEO of Hootsuite, that expressly said that stock options used as part of promoting the high-tech sector would not be part of a federal NDP government’s plan. He made a clear statement to that effect, and it has been recognized and appreciated by Ryan Holmes and others in the tech sector, so I invite the member to do a bit more research.

I was a little surprised that the member for Delta North didn’t talk about the recent activities in tech start-up week, where the B.C. Innovation Council and New Ventures B.C. kicked it off by awarding over $300,000 in cash and prizes to Vancouver’s top tech ventures. There were many winners, but the top winners were Edvisor.io, an on-line management system for education agencies; Change Heroes; as well as Ziva Dynamics. These are but three of the many companies that are making a go of it in the tech sector. They’re being creative. They’re doing their best to attract investment and venture capital.

The venture acceleration program has many centres around British Columbia. I’ve visited many of them. They guide, coach and help grow early-stage technology entrepreneurs. They focus on accelerating the commercialization of technology. These include, among others,
[ Page 9383 ]
VIATeC and Tectoria here in Victoria, VentureLabs and Wavefront in Metro Vancouver, and the fabulous Accelerate Okanagan Technology Association and the Kelowna Innovation Centre.

It’s also worth noting that Vancouver and B.C., according to the Conference Board of Canada and many articles, are not doing as well as they might. B.C. still, as many people point out in rating systems, has multiple Ds in the rating scale, two of them in research and development categories, because we simply are not doing enough. This government is not doing enough to help the sector grow by filling the gaps that will enable them to grow more jobs and an even higher percentage of the GDP.

[1055]

Experts say that globally we are slipping due to a lack of investment. I’ve raised in this chamber and in estimates many times about the failure of this government to meaningfully address the request of the tech sector to show a commitment to early-stage venture capital and help attract it by leveraging private sector investment. We simply don’t have enough in B.C. That’s why the Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking placed Vancouver as 18th. That’s a drop from ninth over three years, and they said funding is the biggest single issue.

B.C. lacks in graduating students with the necessary skills in engineering, science and math. These are the kinds of degrees that are needed in the tech sector, and it’s a reflection of the failure, overall, of our post-secondary sector to actually meet the needs of growing industries.

Let me simply close by saying that the B.C. Technology Industry Association has said we have the ability to double the percentage of GDP from 8 to 16 percent by 2020 as well as add an additional 31,000 jobs over the projected growth line if we simply give the sector the support it needs and attract venture capital.

With that, I will take my seat.

S. Hamilton: I thank the member for Vancouver-Fairview for his comments. I think if there is one thing we both have in the front of our minds and we understand is important, it’s how we try to grow the economy in terms of the investment that we make in the high-tech sector. I’m not quite certain that I received the answer to the question I was looking for. I did mention about the success stories that I talked about a little earlier with Immersive Media. They don’t happen by accident. They come through determination, the hard work of their founders and a few employees who put faith in the future.

The member opposite spoke about us, this government, not doing enough for the high-tech sector. I’m not quite sure what his definition of “enough” is. Let me tell you what we have been doing on behalf of the high-tech sector in this province. We provide the right environment and the right conditions for high techs to flourish.

As an example, venture capital. It’s a critical building block — we know that — to stimulate innovation and ideas in the marketplace. This government has expanded the tax credit budget for its venture capital program from $12 million to $33 million annually. I guess that’s not enough, but businesses can now access up to $110 million in venture capital. B.C.’s venture capital tax credit programs have helped raise more than $88 million in venture capital for over 230 businesses in 2014 alone, and over $435 million over the past five years.

B.C. is taking steps to foster innovation through comprehensive B.C. technology strategies which will build on existing strengths and create new opportunities. As part of the strategy, our government is taking steps to reinforce its innovation performance with initiatives that build on existing strengths. That includes empowering local businesses to improve their export capacity.

I just don’t see why the NDP wants to tax the blood, sweat and inspiration that comes from high-tech entrepreneurs who assume all of that risk. It’s beyond me why the federal NDP leader believes that stock options benefit only the wealthiest Canadians.

By the way, I, too, have a quote from Ryan Holmes, the founder and CEO of Hootsuite. The quote I have speaks a little bit differently, as compared to what the member opposite had to say. His quote goes on to say: “It is one of our most important recruiting tools.” That is in reference to stock options. “By putting taxation on this, they are going to hobble the potential of start-ups to incentivize and to recruit employees. They will hurt small business and innovative businesses.”

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks.

Hon. J. Rustad: I call Motion 24.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 24 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 24 — WOMEN’S
ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

M. Karagianis: I’m very happy this morning to rise in the House and move this motion:

[Be it resolved that this House supports women’s unhindered access to medical treatment.]

I’m hoping that all members of the House will find their way to support this. On the surface, it would certainly appear to be kind a motherhood–apple pie kind of issue. But the reality is that in the 21st century women are still finding inexplicable barriers to accessing a variety of health care services.

[1100]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I think an earmark of this is that we mark, this year, the 20th anniversary of the legislation that was passed by the B.C. NDP in 1995 to protect women accessing health services, very specifically abortions, by creating a bubble zone. In June of 1995, the NDP government passed the Access to Abortion Services Act, which provides a zone of protection from harassment to abortion providers and women seeking abortion services. Those are the points that I’d like to speak to this morning.

Today women are still being challenged and harassed, in the 21st century, trying to access these and other health services. I want to speak specifically about an experience that we’re having in my community, where one of the half-dozen clinics in British Columbia exists. In the community of View Royal, the Victoria women’s clinic provides a variety of services. One of the most notable, of course, is Pap tests.

Anyone who is experiencing the current lack of family doctors in the province will know that it is very difficult to find a family doctor. If you are a young woman who wants to access a yearly Pap test, it’s very difficult without a family doctor. You either go into a walk-in clinic, pick a number and wait to see who is going to do this rather private and intimate examination for you, or else you seek alternatives. In this case, the women’s clinic provides Pap tests, which I think is an important role that they play. In addition, they provide birth control. They also do abortions. And for terminated pregnancies — miscarriages — they are also a primary source of support and medical attention.

Currently there is an anti-abortion group that conducts 40 days of protests here and elsewhere around North America. They very specifically target the clinic in my community, though. There are, of course, a group of pro-choice women who come out to demonstrate against this. This has created a huge clash in my community that is ongoing. The very aggressive nature of the 40 Days protestors creates a very intimidating and harassed environment.

I have received numerous requests, over and over again, from the community to step in and try and provide some help with this. Community members are intimidated in their ability to get back and forth to the clinic, even throughout the course of doing their daily business in the neighbourhood — getting to the bus. We have a woman who feels so deeply threatened and intimidated by this…. She’s living in very-low-cost housing. She’s on a limited income, and she has now found herself having to move.

The community has gathered together: the municipality, Vancouver Island Health Authority, my office. We have all written to the government, asking if they could expand the bubble zone that currently exists there. If you knew the geography and location, an expanded bubble zone would make it more difficult for these harassing events to take place.

In the last 40-day period, during the summer, there were 55 calls to the RCMP about clashes with this group, between community members and the pro-choice group that were protesting or demonstrating there. It’s inexplicable to me why the government has not taken some moves to resolve this.

When I met with the previous Health Minister and laid out what was happening in the area, she said to me: “Was anybody shot? Has anybody been shot in this area?” If that is the criteria that the government expects before they will listen to the community and the cries and calls for help from the municipality and the health authority, I think that is very disturbing.

What is it that the government is finding as a barrier and stands in their way? There is no financial cost to them increasing the bubble zone. There is certainly no political cost to them increasing the bubble zone. So what is the barrier? It is inexplicable to me. It’s wrong. We need to change this. We shouldn’t wait for someone to have experienced physical violence. Women should have free and easy access to these health services without intimidation. If it means expanding the bubble, it seems a small price to pay to keep any kind of further abuse from happening to these women.

[1105]

J. Thornthwaite: Our government recognizes that a healthy life for women involves physical, mental and social well-being. And according to a recent report from the provincial health officer, women in B.C. are among the healthiest in the country.

Through our ongoing women’s health strategy, we have achieved some of the best cancer outcomes in Canada, are protecting young women from up to 70 percent of cervical cancers and are protecting women aged 50 and older from colon cancer in our colon screening program. B.C. women have the best survival outcomes for breast cancer in Canada, due in part to the B.C. Cancer Agency’s comprehensive screening program, which also includes mobile mammography vehicles that tour more than 120 rural communities.

In Canada and in British Columbia, abortions are legal, safe, confidential and covered through the B.C. Medical Services Plan. In B.C., the decision to terminate a pregnancy is up to the woman involved, in consultation with her doctor. Abortion services are covered by the Medical Services Plan and can be performed in a clinic or a hospital setting. Women have access to abortion services before 20-weeks’ gestation throughout British Columbia. After 16 weeks, an abortion can only be done in a hospital, and after 20 weeks, the service is limited to a smaller number of facilities.

The Ministry of Health and health authorities are committed to ensuring everyone needing to access health services can do so safely and also respect their privacy. That’s why the Access to Abortion Services Act legislates
[ Page 9385 ]
a ten-metre access zone around abortion clinics, so that patients can access these services without interference.

We recognize that in some cases, clinics and patients may still feel uncomfortable with the presence of protestors, even outside the ten-metre access zone. However, we have to respect people’s rights to protest their opinions and carry out peaceful protest, as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Victoria, the View Royal women’s clinic often does experience protests, especially during the 40 Days for Life campaign, and Island Health is committed to supporting the clinic in any measures it needs to take to ensure its staff and clients feel safe.

PharmaCare also covers the following contraceptive methods: oral contraceptives, hormonal injectables and the Mirena intrauterine device. For families with net income of $15,000 or less, Fair PharmaCare does not require a deductible. Families pay 30 percent of the cost of pharmaceutical products, up to a maximum family value of between $25 and $300. In 2014, among B.C. women 15 to 44 years of age receiving income assistance or with family incomes under $15,000 who filled a prescription for a contraceptive, 82 percent filled a prescription for an oral contraceptive, 13 percent for Depo-Provera and 8 percent for the Mirena intrauterine device.

Also, the B.C. Women’s Hospital and Health Centre is an agency of the Provincial Health Services Authority, and it’s the only facility in B.C. devoted primarily to women, newborns and families. Through their research arm, the Women’s Health Research Institute, they create new knowledge to inform and transform women’s health and health care.

Women’s health goes beyond hospital care. B.C. Women’s Hospital meets this challenge by contributing to a range of public education activities on topics such as breastfeeding, breast health and osteoporosis; partnering with aboriginal women to support health programs in their communities; as well as leading and contributing to policy development, service planning and clinical guidelines in maternity and specialized women’s health.

They deliver more than 60,000 clinics annually, from pregnancy diagnostic services to breast health imaging care and osteoporosis, incontinence care to comprehensive reproduction medicine for pregnancy loss and pelvic pain, HIV care to abortion and reproductive education services. We have a comprehensive program for women’s health.

J. Darcy: Imagine a young woman in her 20s, about to give birth to her first child. Imagine that she has recently arrived in British Columbia. Imagine that she is a refugee. Call her Elena or Habiba or Carmelita. She has no money. She has no health insurance. She has fled to Canada from a country where she and her future child would not have been safe.

[1110]

Imagine her being told that she will have to pay out of pocket for a hospital delivery. So she opts for a home birth with a midwife who’s willing to help even though this woman doesn’t have insurance coverage, and she prays that she will have an uncomplicated delivery. Imagine her being in labour for 20 long hours. Exhausted and frightened as she was, the fear of being taken by ambulance to a hospital was never far from her mind, because she wouldn’t have been able to afford to pay for it.

Her baby was in fact born without complications, but imagine the feeling of terror that descended upon her a week later when she began to hemorrhage uncontrollably. She was too frightened to call 911. Fortunately, her midwife was able to help her.

But there are many women like Elena or Habiba or Carmelita who have no one to turn to for help and where the outcome is very, very serious. If they don’t get help early on when they need it the most, the cost to their health, to their children’s health can be enormous, and the cost to the health care system goes up, not down.

As British Columbians, as Canadians, we find it impossible to imagine that that situation exists here in this province. We are, many of us, immigrants — or descended from immigrants — who came to this place to find safety and refuge, to build a better life for our families, to contribute to the economy.

Our hearts were broken when we saw the image of four-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi washed up on a beach in Turkey, and now we see pregnant women and children fleeing terror and war and persecution and crying out for our help. By the tens of thousands, British Columbians have opened up their wallets and their places of worship and their homes to support people in need. They want to know that the B.C. government is truly committed also to being there to support women and children and families in their time of need.

Sadly, the federal government cut support for refugees in 2012. But while six other provinces have stepped up, stepped into the void to ensure that refugees have the health support that they need, the government of British Columbia has not. Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and others have all stepped up to say it is unacceptable that vulnerable women like Carmelita and Habiba and Elena and others like them are denied health coverage that they need so that they and their children can be healthy and safe.

Three weeks ago, the Premier held a press conference to say that British Columbia was going to do its part to support refugees, but when she was asked if that meant that B.C. would step up, as six other provinces have done, to ensure that refugee women like these and other refugee claimants would have health coverage, she would not make a clear commitment.

I know that immigrant services organizations have strongly urged this government to make that commitment, a humanitarian approach that has overwhelming
[ Page 9386 ]
support from British Columbians. I know that doctors and nurse practitioners and midwives and other health care providers who serve refugee women have urged this government to make that commitment. They have spoken out eloquently and passionately about our obligation to care for the most vulnerable women who come to our shores and for their newborn children.

They’ve also demonstrated, in very clear financial terms, how much higher the costs will be if we do not provide the prenatal care, the delivery support and the postnatal care that these women need.

We have so many wonderful and dedicated health care professionals who go above and beyond every single day, who dig into their own pockets and, through their own networks, try and support pregnant refugee women at the few clinics that do serve them. But they cannot do it alone. They need support from this government, and they need it now.

Today is the first day of a Week of Reckoning organized by the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care. They are calling on the B.C. government today to step up and provide health coverage for the most vulnerable of refugees. For the sake of Elena, for the sake of Carmelita and Habiba and others like them, I would strongly urge this government to heed their call.

[1115]

J. Tegart: On behalf of my constituents, and especially my female constituents, in Fraser-Nicola, I’m pleased to add my voice to this debate. Our government is extremely proud of our record and our support for women’s access to medical treatment and health care. As a woman who lives in and represents a rural riding, I can say with certainty that females do not have to live in Vancouver or Victoria to receive quality health care.

Now nearing its third anniversary, the B.C. Cancer Agency Centre for the North provides cancer care services in partnership with Northern Health Authority. Located in Prince George, adjacent to the University Hospital of Northern B.C., the Centre for the North meets the needs of the residents of northern B.C. and provides a full range of cancer control services.

The centre offers radiation therapy, systemic therapy and a full range of supportive services, reducing the amount of travel that patients and families have to undertake when facing a cancer diagnosis and treatment. Combining the closer-to-home strategy with the northern way of caring helps all members of the team work towards the goal of patient-centred care when providing and transitioning services.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer diagnosed in Canadian women, but B.C. women have the best survival outcomes for breast cancer in Canada, due in part to the B.C. Cancer Agency’s comprehensive screening program, which also involves mobile mammography vehicles that tour more than 120 rural communities. The B.C. Cancer Agency’s screening mammography program, established in 1988, was the first organized population-based screening program in Canada for the early detection of breast cancer.

Mammograms help find cancer in its earliest stages, when there are more treatment options and a better chance for successful treatment. Similar to other cancer screening programs on healthy citizens, there is no significant wait time for the initial screening test provided by the patient’s GP or a B.C. Cancer Agency technologist.

There are 37 mammography screening centres across the province and three mobile vans that visit more than 120 smaller B.C. communities, including many First Nations communities. The number of First Nations communities the mobile vans visited nearly doubled in 2012-2013.

In the spring of 2013, the B.C. Cancer Agency screening mammography program visited 11 First Nations communities over two weeks. The technologists were warmly received in those communities and reported that the women they visited told them: “By the program visiting us, we see how valuable it is.”

B.C.’s first new digital mobile mammography vehicle was unveiled by the Health Minister in February 2015. The mobile coach is the first of three screening mammography program vehicles in the province to transition to digital mammography, with the other two coaches planned for replacement in early 2016. The mobile unit annually visits the Gulf Islands; central Vancouver Island, including Tofino and Ucluelet; north Vancouver Island, including Port Hardy and Port McNeill; as well as Bella Bella and Bella Coola.

The transition from analog to digital is part of B.C.’s provincial breast health strategy and allows for greater efficiency in the sharing of images. In addition, technologists will be able to see the images right away to ensure image quality, rather than waiting for the films to be developed when they return to their reporting centre.

The Ministry of Health has provided $940,000 for the digital mobile mammography coach, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and Shoppers Drug Mart have provided additional support through sponsorship. For remote communities, that mobile coach is a godsend, and for those who can’t go to the mobile coach, assisted travel support is provided for eligible women in the community to attend either the nearest fixed centre or a mobile stop.

[1120]

A. Dix: I’m proud to speak on the motion by the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads: “Be it resolved that this House supports women’s unhindered access to medical treatment.”

I think that often on this question, the issues are twofold. One is to ensure that women have the right to have access without impediment to medical treatment that is available to them. The second question is: what happens
[ Page 9387 ]
when such treatment is not available to them, as is the case in many parts of British Columbia, especially rural British Columbia?

In the early 1990s, the hon. Speaker and members of this House will recall, there was a very significant and problematic situation with respect to access to abortion in British Columbia. At that time, there was intense protest outside the relatively small number of clinics that were available to women to access their needed medical procedure.

The government faced a very difficult problem, which was to balance rights — to balance the absolute right of doctors to have security of the person, the absolute right of women to have access, without being fettered, to medical services that were legal in Canada, on the one hand, and the right of others to protest. There’s a lot of cynicism today, I think, about the ability of government to address these kinds of problems.

Yet the government of the day, and a very courageous Health Minister and former member of this House named Paul Ramsey, came forward, with lots of assistance from members of this House at the time — I think of the Hon. Penny Priddy, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and others — to come forth with legislation that was sometimes called bubble-zone legislation.

It was the Access to Abortion Services Act. The intent of that was to diffuse the situation — in fact, to create a zone around such clinics where women were safe, without, frankly, taking away people’s right in the general population and outside of those clinics to protest on the question.

What has happened since? Well, two significant things have happened since. Anyone who remembers that time knows that that legislation, which was very difficult to do and required an act of courage by the Health Minister and the government, has made the situation better. That situation where people’s health was at risk, where there was the potential for violence and there was violence, has been, to a significant extent, reduced by that legislation working effectively.

That legislation was also, it should be noted, sustained by the courts. In other words, it was challenged on Charter grounds, and it was sustained because the legislative intent was right and because the government found the balance necessary to balance off the rights on both sides. It was an enormous and significant success and has been used effectively by government to protect women, service providers and the broader community.

I note, considering the comments of my colleague from Esquimalt, that one of the key questions addressed by the courts was the size of the zone. In this case, there’s a significant request to have the size for the zone appropriate to the circumstance.

What did Madam Justice Ryan rule on this question? She found that the zones in question could be “reasonably tailored to the location and circumstances of the clinic” — from her ruling on the appeal. In other words, these options are available to use the legislation as it was intended to protect women without unnecessarily impeding the right to protest. It can happen, I suggest, in greater Victoria and should happen.

This is a necessary balancing of the rights. It’s necessary, in my view, to protect the rights of women and the broader community. What the member from Esquimalt is suggesting today is that this is a law that worked. It was supported by members on both sides of the House, including the Opposition spokesperson — the Speaker of the House, the member for Richmond East at the time — and members on both sides of the House.

It worked, and it is, I think, incumbent on the government to use that piece of legislation to ensure the broader stability of the community and the rights of women. It is as necessary now to do that as it was in 1991 and 1992 and 1993 and 1994. That is, I think, what the member from Esquimalt is suggesting her in this debate.

She has made representations to successive Health ministers on the question. We are hopeful that this debate will shine a sufficient light on the question that those Health ministers will respond with the intent of the legislation supported by both parties in the House at the time and use the Access to Abortion Services Act, the bubble-zone legislation, to protect women here in Victoria and across B.C.

[1125]

G. Hogg: I rise to respond to the motion by the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads that reads: “Be it resolved that this House supports women’s unhindered access to medical treatment.”

In her opening comments, she talked about it being perhaps motherhood. I certainly concur that when we talk of phraseology such as that, it is a motherhood issue with respect to the principles of our society, as we wish to reflect those and provide some balance with respect to that.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway made reference to a number of issues that happened through the 1990s. I remember my days as a local politician and a mayor when we had societies running each of our hospitals and they were taken over, in many cases, by pro-life groups that were challenging the operation. Particularly, they were interested in ensuring that there were no abortions taking place, in many instances.

I give credit to the NDP government of the day that developed health authorities and put health authorities in place so that we could be much more principled and reflect society’s values, as we saw them, as a province. I think that we’ve had the opportunity to continue to do that in so many ways as we move forward.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway also made reference to it being two parts — the principles and then the delivery of those principles, the actualization of those
[ Page 9388 ]
principles, the practices that we put in place with respect to those services. Certainly, that is the challenge, I think — that we support the principles, the values and the decisions that have been reinforced by legislation and by court proceedings regarding that.

I have the privilege of chairing the project committee for Vancouver’s B.C. Children’s and Women’s Hospital and the redevelopment, looking at the issues there and, certainly, listening to the very professional and caring staff members there talking about the issues that are taking place and managed through Women’s Hospital. I’m buoyed each time that I attend one of those meetings and hear how they’re facing those challenges and about the compassion and the caring they have in attempting to provide as broad a base of services as they possibly can to all people in this province — in particular, their focus being on women and the specialization that they take there.

The rebuild is some $678 million. It sees a new and expanded neonatal intensive care unit, a pediatric intensive care unit, high-risk birthing areas. Particularly, there is the development of single-parent and family rooms and areas to sit in. It gives a chance for them to receive more personalized service, which is not something that we’ve been able to see in a number of our hospitals.

Certainly, as we’re moving forward, looking at this type of change I think is a very positive initiative with respect to how we provide, how we interact and how these professionals interact, particularly with women who are coming with particular challenges that are not being addressed perhaps in local communities as well as we might all hope they would be. But certainly, the specialization of Children’s and Women’s Hospital provides a paragon of expertise that is spreading throughout the province in oh so many ways.

There are also challenges in terms of being able to find enough family doctors to facilitate, to arrange and to deliver services throughout the province. Certainly, we’ve worked hard at trying to increase the number of doctors and the availability of those throughout the province, having more than doubled the number of graduates that we have, looking at them coming from around the province in different fashions and different ways.

We’re particularly looking at nurse practitioners and their participation with respect to the delivery of those services and being able to assist in the delivery of common based services that follow the principles that the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads presented.

I think we would all agree that we want unhindered access for all people to the medical services that are needed in our society. Clearly, there have been some lags with respect to that, if we go back historically in terms of the services provided to women. I’m confident that we’re catching up on that. I’m confident that the process that is being outlined in terms of the principle is endorsed and has been supported in both legislation and through the court proceedings. However, we need to catch up in terms of some of the service delivery models, despite the great progress that we’ve made.

[1130]

While the principle of uninhibited access, I think, is clearly one that we all support in this House, being able to work at ensuring that we’re able to address that with the services necessary continues to be the challenge.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

S. Hammell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you in the chair.

I’m delighted to join the debate. I look at the motion brought forward by the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads. Just to clarify it, we are debating: “Be it resolved that this House supports women’s unhindered access to medical treatment.”

In listening to the House debate this morning, this is a very wide-ranging debate, but it also is a debate with a very specific ask. That ask is to expand the bubble zone in areas where it has been deemed necessary due to protests and to harassment of people seeking this legitimate medical procedure. The procedure is guaranteed as part of our health care system. It is a system that does guarantee right to unhindered access.

I want to go back and focus again on the debate around the bubble zone. It was, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, in 1995 that the New Democratic Party government introduced the Access to Abortion Services Act and established the bubble zones. The act was also known affectionately as the bubble-zone act and was created to ensure freedom from anti-choice protestors around locations where abortions were performed.

Those bubble zones and the current bubble zones now, in most circumstances, provided safety for women choosing abortion services and for their health care providers.

This act, in 1995 — and I remember it well — was very, very controversial on both sides of the House. It was certainly not unanimously supported. It was quite high energy in terms of the reaction to the legislation. In fact, all members did not vote on it, and some members did vote against it.

The purpose of the legislation was to not only provide freedom of access to this necessary medical service but also around offices of doctors who performed abortion services and residences of physicians and other service providers. The bubble-zone act actually prohibited a person who was within an access zone from engaging in things like sidewalk interference, protesting, physically interfering, or intimidating a service provider, a doctor or a patient who was entering the medical service provider’s facility.

The expansion of the act was in part motivated by an attempt to take Dr. Romalis’s life — an abortion provider in Vancouver. A person had been killed in the States by
[ Page 9389 ]
a sniper, and Dr. Romalis was shot at in his home while eating breakfast — therefore, the need to provide a bubble zone around the provider’s home.

This act was challenged twice in the B.C. Supreme Court and in the B.C. Court of Appeal.

[1135]

The act was deliberately broken or challenged by two men who entered the access zone surrounding Everywoman’s health clinic in Vancouver. One man held up two signs, and the other held up a large cross. They went inside the bubble zone to intimidate and harass people who were not only patients but the staff of the facility. The men were arrested, charged and convicted of unlawful behaviour within the clinic’s access zone. To this day, that legislation stands and is a testament to time in terms of protecting medical services.

L. Reimer: I’m quite pleased that the opposition has chosen to highlight women’s access to medical treatment with this morning’s motion, because we have a number of success stories to tell. In fact, British Columbia is a leading jurisdiction not only in Canada but in the world.

As a matter of fact, the Conference Board of Canada ranked B.C. in 2015 as third in the world for health performance following only Switzerland and Sweden. That not only means we were the only province in Canada to receive a grade of A; it also means that we beat out other countries like Australia, Norway, France, Finland, Austria and Denmark.

That’s right. While many analysts look to the Nordic countries as international models of health care, now they are looking to British Columbia. For good reason too. This government recognizes that a healthy life for women involves physical, mental and social well-being.

According to a recent report from the provincial health officer, women in B.C. are among the healthiest in the country. Through our ongoing women’s health strategy, we have achieved some of the best breast cancer outcomes in Canada, are protecting young women from up to 70 percent of cervical cancers and are protecting women aged 50 and older from colon cancer with our colon screening program.

B.C. women have the best survival outcomes for breast cancer in Canada due in part to the B.C. Cancer Agency’s comprehensive screening program. This also includes mobile mammography vehicles that tour more than 120 rural communities.

As you may be aware, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. And to coincide, the Abbotsford Breast Health Centre officially opened on October 2.

To make this happen, the John Laing Infrastructure fund donated space for the centre, which was valued at $1.8 million. This was previously retail space in the lobby of the hospital for the Abbotsford Breast Health Centre. In addition, Fraser Health contributed more than $1 million to renovate the area. Another partner, the Crystal Gala Foundation, pledged $500,000 through the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation to provide medical equipment and furnishings.

The new Abbotsford Breast Health Centre, located in the clinic, is where people self-refer for breast exams. A triple assessment service is provided, including medical imaging plus a physical exam and a biopsy. Patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer will receive follow-up treatment and counselling in the centre.

The clinic is decidedly non-clinical with a welcome and relaxing atmosphere. It’s reflected in the warmth of the decor and the gentle process by which patients will be helped through their journey. The clinic is a perfect example of government’s focus on providing patients with access to compassionate and timely care as close to their home communities as possible.

B.C. women have the best survival outcomes for breast cancer in Canada due in part to the B.C. Cancer Agency’s comprehensive screening program. In 2014-15, the program performed 260,016 screening examinations, and as of December 2014, 52.5 percent of women aged 50 to 69 years in B.C. had mammograms in the previous 30 months.

Our government has given $4.5 million in funding since 2005 to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation’s Go Have One campaign to increase participation in mammography screening.

I encourage all women to go have one. If you haven’t, call 1-888-gohave1. Mammograms help find cancer in its earliest stages when there are more treatment options and a better chance for successful treatment.

Before I conclude, while this motion pertains to a woman’s access to medical treatment, I should add that men should also be aware that breast cancer is not exclusive only to women. Regular checkups are the best defence for anyone, a man or a woman.

[1140]

G. Heyman: It’s been 27 years since the Supreme Court of Canada established a women’s right to access abortion services in Canada. A couple of years after I was elected to this place, I attended a showing of a film called After Tiller that was held as a benefit for the Elizabeth Bagshaw Women’s Clinic in Vancouver-Fairview. The person who introduced that film was Dr. Garson Romalis. He talked about the impact on doctors throughout the United States following the murder of Dr. Tiller in Wichita. He talked about the importance of women having unfettered access to abortion.

I think people in this House will know that in November 1994, Dr. Garson Romalis was shot. He was shot while he was in his kitchen in his home. He was subsequently stabbed in the year 2001 in the parking lot of his own practice. Following the second attack, Dr. Romalis, a brave and courageous man who has since passed of natural causes, maintained only his position as medical director of the Elizabeth Bagshaw Clinic.
[ Page 9390 ]

In talking to workers at the Elizabeth Bagshaw Clinic, they talked about the effect, on both women and staff, of that last attack on Dr. Romalis. The last attack on Dr. Romalis happened after the Elizabeth Bagshaw Clinic moved from a location where they were subject to regular protests outside their doors. I’ll return to that in a moment.

I simply want to quote from then Health Minister Paul Ramsey when he introduced the Access to Abortion Services Act in 1995. He said: “This bill ensures that women have access to reproductive health services in an atmosphere of privacy and dignity…. Abortion is a legal medical service, and access to medical services is one of the foundations of medicare.”

During that debate, the current Speaker of this Legislature said: “As I enter into the debate this morning on Bill 48, I do so from a perspective of safety and security.”

Many services are provided at the Elizabeth Bagshaw Clinic, and many women attend in addition to attending for surgical abortions. They attend for routine ultrasound evaluation. They attend for counselling and community referrals. They attend for birth control counselling and prescriptions, including low-cost sales of contraception. They attend for Pap tests. They attend for screening for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV testing.

But when the clinic itself was subject to regular harassment outside the bubble zone, women were intimidated from attending. Talking to Jill Doctoroff, the executive director of the clinic, she said that since they moved, there hadn’t been much protest at Elizabeth Bagshaw. But there’s still, in Everywoman’s Health Centre, which is just outside Vancouver-Fairview, a regular group protesting weekly, and they’ve been doing this for a very long time.

Protests have an intimidating effect on both staff and women who seek to attend for the services. Women who call Elizabeth Bagshaw will often ask about whether there are protestors outside when they’re making an appointment. They say they’re relieved when they find out that Elizabeth Bagshaw has moved into an office building with many tenants, which means that they could be walking in for any service whatsoever.

The staff definitely feel safer in the new environment. They felt very threatened, despite the fact they were in an office building when Dr. Romalis was stabbed. That’s why the board of Elizabeth Bagshaw made a conscious decision to move to an office building that, in effect, did not leave women or staff exposed to the intimidation of protests.

It is important that women have unfettered access, and that should include freedom from harassment and intimidation when they are going for medical services, which may already be stressful enough.

It’s for that reason that I rise today to support this motion and urge the government to consider the point behind the motion that the bubble zone be increased so women do not feel threatened, intimidated or harassed when they’re seeking legal medical services.

[1145]

D. McRae: I wish to also thank the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads for bringing the issues of women’s unhindered access to medical treatment to this Legislature.

I wish today to speak from the perspective as a son and a husband but, most importantly, as a father. I also want to preface my comments by saying that government work to date in health care is not complete. As new technologies, new treatments and resources are increased or reallocated, we continue to do better for the residents of British Columbia.

British Columbians are in a very enviable position. If you look at StatsCan, our life expectancy in British Columbia is the highest in the nation — 81.7 years. Now for men, we’re not doing our part. We’re only 80 on average. But for females, our life expectancy is 84 years, the highest in Canada. In the last 80 years, we’ve increased life expectancy for Canadians by over 20 years. We have given that much life to British Columbians because of work that this government and other governments have done before us, and also for the citizens themselves.

For women and men, we are among the longest-lived nations on the planet. By comparison, if you look to the south, the United States, while we’re in the top 10, the United States is No. 48. Why are we so long-lived? Well, diet has a role to play; fitness levels, social activity, weight loss are all important. But also, a vital component to long-livedness is having a health care system that is both reactive to the needs of its clients and is accessible to those who need it.

Speaking as a father of two young children, I’m proud that our government recognizes that healthy life for women involves physical, mental and social well-being. B.C, as we have all said in this chamber, is a very large province. While specialists, GPs, nurse practitioners and other health care professionals are working in communities large and small across the province — they work incredibly hard to provide the needed care locally — sometimes a greater level of care is needed. That’s why I’m pleased we have the B.C. Women’s Hospital and Health Centre. It does 60,000 clinic services yearly.

Now, as a parent, I hope not to attend it. I hope my needs are (a) not necessary or that (b) my children’s needs, when they do go, can be done locally. For example, my young daughter Gracie, whom I’ve talked about in this chamber, was born a little early. We expected her to be an August baby. She was a July baby. We didn’t have time to go to a bigger health facility.

The doctor said: “When the baby is born, you’re probably going to leave. You’re probably going to go to Vancouver, maybe Victoria, but because we’re so far through the pregnancy, you’re going to have to stay in the Comox Valley for the birth.” Well, we did. As a proud
[ Page 9391 ]
McRae, I’m pleased to say she’s tough as nails, and we didn’t have to go. We were able to stay in the Comox Valley. But some people have to take their children to higher-level facilities.

Another family member of mine was born at 2½ pounds. When I first met her, she was the size of a kitten, an eight-week-old kitten. Maybe 60 years ago she would not have lived. But because of our investments, because of our skilled professionals, she’s an amazing 20-year-old woman today.

The Women’s Hospital and Health Centre continues to do great work, saving young children, saving women, to make sure we have long lives. Again, the work is not done. I’m also pleased to note that there is $678 million renovation for that facility going on right now. Why? It’s because we need to make sure that we have these supports.

B.C. has the second-lowest overall cancer incidence rate and the lowest mortality rate in Canada. B.C. women have the best survival outcomes for breast cancer. Screening is available in 37 centres across the province. We also have mobile vans, as mentioned earlier, that visit 120 small communities across British Columbia, including 35 First Nation communities.

B.C. continues to provide HPV vaccine to school-age girls to provide, in seven out of ten cases, immunization for cervical cancers. I’m proud that the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Education work together to coordinate and strengthen the health, social and justice system of the province, as it responds to harassment and violence against women and girls.

B.C. also has the most comprehensive health promotion program in Canada, HealthyFamilies B.C. It helps families work in four areas: healthy eating, healthy lifestyles, resources for parents and fostering healthy communities.

There is one other piece. I also want to make sure we reference that there is a social element, too, that we can do. I’d be remiss to not talk about the single-parent initiative that was introduced by the Minister of Social Development last spring. It has gone into production on September 1, and 16,000 parents across the province of British Columbia and 24,000 children are now eligible to have supports through the single-parent initiative. For those who aren’t aware of it — sadly, I know there are still a few — it provides up to 12 months of funded training for jobs or paid work experience.

This government works hard for women and children in this province. We continue to do so. I’m proud of the work to date.

[1150]

C. James: I’m pleased to rise in support of the motion introduced by my colleague from Esquimalt–Royal Roads: “Be it resolved that this House supports women’s unhindered access to medical treatment.”

Now, I think others have mentioned this, but I think many people might think that this an issue of the past, that women have unhindered access to medical treatment, that it shouldn’t be an issue — and why would we be talking about this issue today? Well, I want to take my few minutes to talk about some very specific areas where women are having challenges and where we need to have those issues addressed in British Columbia.

You heard my colleague talk about the challenges in our area, in the greater Victoria area, when it comes to accessing abortion services for women in our community. We’re incredibly fortunate in this province to have bubble-zone legislation, as it is known — something that 20 years ago was introduced, in June 1995, and supported by a number of people in this Legislature from different political sides. I’ve heard some of my colleagues on the other side speak favourably about that legislation that was introduced — a very brave and courageous act at the time, in particular with the challenges that were going on.

You heard my colleague talk about Dr. Romalis and his entire life being changed because of the violence that was going on during the time period. I certainly remember those days, of seeing the harassment, the violence, the tragic shootings and the kinds of challenges and difficulties that people were facing during that time period.

That legislation was created to ensure that women and medical professionals were provided with the security, the respect and the privacy that was due to them, that they deserved. It was also put in place to continue to allow legitimate, peaceful protest — I think, as my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said, a very difficult challenge. We can’t underestimate the challenge of a government bringing forward that kind of legislation — legislation that has survived the test of time, survived the tests in the courts and survived its main intent, which was to give a tool to be able to continue to allow women access to medical procedures.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

But those challenges continue today. We’ve seen, as I said, right in this area, in the greater Victoria area, the difficulty of the bubble zone and the bubble zone not meeting the needs of the community. It has been pointed out that we, in fact, can adjust the bubble zone. It is supposed to be adjusted to meet the needs of the community.

When you take a look at a community coming forward where the MLA, where the mayor, where community members have all come forward to say: “We need the Health Minister to pay attention to this. We need the adjustments to be made to make sure that peaceful protest can happen but that women have access to the medical procedure….” Everyone has a right to free speech and to peaceful protest, but everyone also has a responsibility to protest without violence and without harassment, and that responsibility is not being followed right now.
[ Page 9392 ]
That responsibility is not being followed for women who are coming forward.

I certainly encourage the Health Minister, and the members on the other side who have also spoken in support of this to encourage the Health Minister, to take a look and see what services and supports can be provided to the community.

But that’s not the only area where there are challenges for women to access services. The other area I just want to mention quickly is the area of maternity supports. In our province we have seen maternity supports removed from hospitals in small rural communities across this province. We have seen women who, with high-risk pregnancies, are having to travel to main centres and spend time, energy and resources and be away from their family during a difficult pregnancy just to be able to be there, to be able to get good supports that they need in the last month of their pregnancy.

When we talk about access to medical supports, it’s important that we remember that there are still huge gaps in our province where women are looking for those supports. Certainly, I would think that good maternity services, good basic supports for women in communities, is something that most people would expect are there for women but, in fact, in many of our small communities, aren’t.

One of the members also talked about the lack of services and supports for women who don’t have a family doctor. If you don’t have a family doctor, it’s very hard to get those prevention services, like Pap tests, which have been proven to reduce rates of cancer, to be able to catch cancer early.

Yet if you’re someone who doesn’t have a family doctor, to be able to have to go to a walk-in clinic, to be able to wait in line, to find out that sometimes in walk-in clinics those Pap tests aren’t available…. That, again, isn’t providing good-quality health care or prevention services that are necessary for women.

C. James moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Members, I’ll take a moment. I’ve reviewed the transcripts from this morning’s statements, and I can assure all members that it is possible to disagree without resorting to personal attack. I would certainly trust that that will be the demeanour in this chamber next Monday.

Hon. A. Wilkinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada